Study Shows Sasquatch Intelligence Impossible Without Fire.

[Guest Transformer]

There is absolutely no evidence that sasquatches cook their food so does this study put an end to the idea that sasquatches are intelligent? And, if so, how is it that they can avoid us with ninja like skill if they do not have great intelligence?

Humans have more brain neurons than any other primate—about 86 billion, on average, compared with about 33 billion neurons in gorillas and 28 billion in chimpanzees. While these extra neurons endow us with many benefits, they come at a price—our brains consume 20% of our body's energy when resting, compared with 9% in other primates. So a long-standing riddle has been where did our ancestors get that extra energy to expand their minds as they evolved from animals with brains and bodies the size of chimpanzees?

The researchers found two things: One, that brain size is directly linked to the number of neurons in a brain; and two, that that the number of neurons is directly correlated to the amount of energy (or calories) needed to feed a brain.

In the wild, other apes can't evolve bigger brains unless they reduce their body sizes because they can't get past the limit of how many calories they can consume in 7 hours to 8 hours of feeding per day. But humans, she says, got around that limit by cooking. "The reason we have more neurons than any other animal alive is that cooking allowed this qualitative change—this step increase in brain size," she says. "By cooking, we managed to circumvent the limitation of how much we can eat in a day."

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/10/raw-food-not-enough-to-feed-big-.html#disqus_thread

If the study stands I think that this is a very big blow to the entire concept of a giant wild primate able to live undetected in North America.

[GuyInIndiana]

I think it's a bit unfair to put Sasquatch in that title. Why not "Study Shows Intelligence Impossible Without Fire" .. considering no one has DONE an actual study on a Sasquatch. The title is more than slightly misrepresentational.

[Guest BFSleuth]

This would be a blow to the concept of a large wild hominid/primate if the cooking theory is correct. A later quote in the article you sited:

"But "the jury is still out" on whether cooking was responsible for the first dramatic burst of brain growth in our lineage, in H. erectus, Martin says, or whether our ancestors began cooking over a fire later, when the brain went through a second major growth spurt about 600,000 years ago. Hearths show up in the archaeological record 800,000 years ago and the regular use of fire for cooking doesn't become widespread until more recently."

The theory of fire equals bigger brains isn't confirmed yet. I think in order to support this theory you would have to accept that the digestive systems of all primates are the same. For example, if BF has a digestive system that is capable of breaking down roots or tubers efficiently then it precludes the need for fire to "predigest" them. It would not surprise me if we have a BF specimen that we might find their digestive tract is significantly different than ours.

I'm also reminded of the recent study of ancient human coprolites from Antelope Cave in Arizona, which showed that they had diets which had about 10 times as much fiber as modern recommendations for healthy fiber intake. This theory of fire being required to predigest food in part depends on the need to break down plant fibers for full digestion. Apparently ancient humans did quite well with very high fiber diets, much higher than we are used to in our modern age.

[Guest]

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while.

In the wild, other apes can't evolve bigger brains unless they reduce their body sizes because they can't get past the limit of how many calories they can consume in 7 hours to 8 hours of feeding per day. But humans, she says, got around that limit by cooking.

Illogical argument. Cooking has nothing to do with adding calories to a food. Why would cooking or not cooking whatever you have available matter? A deer is a deer is a deer - regardless of whether or not it's deer meat or venison. WHY would bigfoot NEED fire? Answer? It doesn't. Only humans are so inferior and ill-adapted that we cannot digest food in its natural state. It's applying human qualities to a creature that is not HSS. Steak tartare anyone? Any raw foodists? Any fruitarians?

Now, if the argument was that AGRICULTURE - the stockpiling of food calories - was responsible for larger size brains, that might fly... some. That was only 10k years ago. Any brain growth in HSS since then???

When did we start cooking? Which hominids were around 600k years ago?

Edited October 26, 2012 by madison5716

[Guest poignant]

Er...no damage at all to the BF cause if you ask me. Some premises need to be addressed:

1. Why would a human brain be needed to have ninja like evasiveness? A lot of animals show cognitive planning and cunning.

2. I get the neural-caloric requirement relationship, but I think there is enough caloric intake to fuel a smart primate.

3. Bipedalism is energy saving - this was not addressed for chimps and gorillas who take twice the amount of calories to move the same horizontal distance a human would.

4. Yes we got by with cooking, bipedalism, cooperation, task specialization. It was not just cooking alone.

[Guest Transformer]

I think it's a bit unfair to put Sasquatch in that title. Why not "Study Shows Intelligence Impossible Without Fire" .. considering no one has DONE an actual study on a Sasquatch. The title is more than slightly misrepresentational.

I could not disagree more because by definition a Sasquatch is a primate and this study is specific to primates. If Sasquatches are not primates what are they?

[Guest poignant]

BFSleuth is correct. There may be enzymatic adaptations to allow more efficient digestion of foods that a modern human body would have to work harder to extract.

[Guest]

Exactly how does cooking make it possible to eat more? That is not clear to me at all. Say what? I can see it might make it more nutririous....on the other hand why limit foraging to 7 to 8 hours? Wouldn't diet changes make more sense as a factor to intelligence than cooking food? Fattier foods, meat v only veggies, hunting techniques, clilmate......way too many other variables.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Let alone the fact that our recent human ancestors may well have had different "gut ecosystems" than we would typically find in a modern population. All of us have "good bacteria" in our intestines, which help in digestion. Some people have conditions which cause their digestive tracts to be unable to break down food properly. Indigenous people have higher fiber diets and likely also have different gut ecosystems to be able to handle it. The fire theory would have to assume similar or same gut ecosystems or at least take into account differing gut ecosystems.

[Guest]

Actually the only food that GAINS nutrition by a human-created process is fermentation (purposeful). Sauerkraut is much more nutritious than plain cabbage. Much more vitamin C. But that's the only example I can think of.

And, I believe cooked foods are LESS nutritious than raw... as in eat your veggies raw because they have less nutritional value cooked. Hasn't your mother ever told you that????

And now actually, I just found this article that says the opposite.

http://blogs.discove...ot-more-energy/

And an article saying the opposite, again, back to raw as superior -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-131348/Why-raw-food-good-you.html

I still don't think it matters where BF is concerned.

Edited October 26, 2012 by madison5716

[Guest Transformer]

This would be a blow to the concept of a large wild hominid/primate if the cooking theory is correct. A later quote in the article you sited:

"But "the jury is still out" on whether cooking was responsible for the first dramatic burst of brain growth in our lineage, in H. erectus, Martin says, or whether our ancestors began cooking over a fire later, when the brain went through a second major growth spurt about 600,000 years ago. Hearths show up in the archaeological record 800,000 years ago and the regular use of fire for cooking doesn't become widespread until more recently."

The theory of fire equals bigger brains isn't confirmed yet. I think in order to support this theory you would have to accept that the digestive systems of all primates are the same. For example, if BF has a digestive system that is capable of breaking down roots or tubers efficiently then it precludes the need for fire to "predigest" them. It would not surprise me if we have a BF specimen that we might find their digestive tract is significantly different than ours.

I'm also reminded of the recent study of ancient human coprolites from Antelope Cave in Arizona, which showed that they had diets which had about 10 times as much fiber as modern recommendations for healthy fiber intake. This theory of fire being required to predigest food in part depends on the need to break down plant fibers for full digestion. Apparently ancient humans did quite well with very high fiber diets, much higher than we are used to in our modern age.

The process of how we got to using fire is a chicken or egg argument and is moot as we are discussing modern human intelligence as opposed to our smaller sized and smaller brained ancestors from 6000,000 thousand years ago. The fact is that large numbers of neurons require large inputs of energy and that is not in dispute. I find the idea that a primate having a digestive system so superior and different to all other known primates completely irrational as that would mean a completely different evolutionary line. The fiber argument is pretty weak also because only one gram of fiber is recommended for every 1000 calories and the daily calorie intake for adults is around 2000 - 2500 calories. So that means that the daily recommended fiber intake is only 2.5 grams and 10 times that amount is only 25 grams. A US 5 cent piece (a nickel) weighs 5 grams so your example would only be eating the equivalent weight of 5 nickels in fiber a day. Pretty insignificant!!!

[Guest Twilight Fan]

What a silly study! Other apes ARE intelligent! Maybe not compared to us, but they sure know how to hide from humans when they want to. It takes even the most EXPERIENCED TRACKERS to find mountian gorillas in the wild. And if the ability to learn sign language isn't intelligent (see: Koko), then I don't know what is!

[Guest poignant]

No caloric gain necessarily. Cooking allows easier absorption so your body doesn't have to go through the extra chemical pathways to make the food absorb-able.

[Guest Transformer]

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while.

Illogical argument. Cooking has nothing to do with adding calories to a food. Why would cooking or not cooking whatever you have available matter? A deer is a deer is a deer - regardless of whether or not it's deer meat or venison. WHY would bigfoot NEED fire? Answer? It doesn't. Only humans are so inferior and ill-adapted that we cannot digest food in its natural state. It's applying human qualities to a creature that is not HSS. Steak tartare anyone? Any raw foodists? Any fruitarians?

Now, if the argument was that AGRICULTURE - the stockpiling of food calories - was responsible for larger size brains, that might fly... some. That was only 10k years ago. Any brain growth in HSS since then???

When did we start cooking? Which hominids were around 600k years ago?

You are missing the point because it is all about energy which comes about by digesting food. Cooking is a way of predigesting food which allows for a far more efficient conversion of food to energy in our digestive system.

BFSleuth is correct. There may be enzymatic adaptations to allow more efficient digestion of foods that a modern human body would have to work harder to extract.

So you are saying let's just invent things that do not exist in any known primate or possibly in any known mammal or may be just impossible period. Why not just say it's magic as an answer to any difficult question?

[Guest poignant]

Yes, it is an efficiency equation.

Same amount of gas, more horsepower.

.

Edited October 26, 2012 by poignant